Did SM do some coding changes?

brandofamily

I'm noticing that some of the alignment on my pages is off. I did nothing to my code....
The changes look to be in FF only as far as I have found...
In using FF WD CSS edit function I see some tabs I do not remember... one being fonts.css...
Is this the code that is changing things? If so, can I over ride it? Or do I need to tweak some of my pages?
Thanks

Allen

Just noticed /popular don't work in FF or IE6

Andy

Allen wrote:

Just noticed /popular don't work in FF or IE6

Yeah, the guys'll fix that
Sorry.

Allen

A direct link to a popular photo works just not /popular.
Thanks Andy

brandofamily

Andy wrote:

Yeah, the guys'll fix that
Sorry.

Thoughts on the font issue?

ivar

brandofamily wrote:

Thoughts on the font issue?

I don't think anything changed as far as your customization goes. There are some more CSS tabs, that's all.

brandofamily

ivar wrote:

I don't think anything changed as far as your customization goes. There are some more CSS tabs, that's all.

Well something has changed. I have been meticulous in my work to assure margins and spacing are identical in IE6, IE7, FF and For the most part Safari... Now many of these margins and spacing are changed...

stlracing

what happened to the CREATE GALLERY button?

Dbl

stlracing wrote:

what happened to the CREATE GALLERY button?

Ditto on both of my sites. What is going on today, the IE error and now no create gallery button. This is getting more than a bit frustrating.

ivar

Dbl wrote:

Ditto on both of my sites. What is going on today, the IE error and now no create gallery button. This is getting more than a bit frustrating.

Try clicking on the new, green, 'add photos' button

stlracing

ivar wrote:

Try clicking on the new, green, 'add photos' button

That is nice. But it doesn't work in IE for me, but does in Firefox.

Andy

stlracing wrote:

That is nice. But it doesn't work in IE for me, but does in Firefox.

It should. Your IE version please?

dogwood

ivar wrote:

Try clicking on the new, green, 'add photos' button

I noticed this today. Is there a thread explaining why this changed? I'm not complaining, I promise, just curious if I'm missing the advantage of this method over the previous 'create gallery' method.

Sometimes I'm a little slow when it comes to accepting change...

Allen

ivar wrote:

Try clicking on the new, green, 'add photos' button

GREEN!!!!! :pukerofl

denisegoldberg

Andy wrote:

It should. Your IE version please?

Andy -
I'm having the same problem. The Add photos button works from the top level galleries page, but it does not work within a category.

In case that's about as clear as mud...
Add photo works from http://denise.smugmug.com/galleries.
It does not work from http://denise.smugmug.com/Wandering%20near%20home. On that page I get the status message "Done, but with errors on page".

This is a problem on IE. It is not a problem in Firefox.

--- Denise

Update on June 9th, 6AM EST - problem resolved per message from {jt} in yesterday's other problem thread. I cleared my cookies, but I did not need to restart anything.

DavidTO

I have the same problem with the add photo button in categories in Safari. Ivar mentioned that restarting the modem/router should clear the problem up. Problem is, I'm at work, and I'm not about to ask them to reset anything just so I can see if it helps. But for the rest of you, give that a shot. Restart your modem and router.

scwalter

ivar wrote:

Try clicking on the new, green, 'add photos' button

I'm sorry, but I really don't see this an an improvement in any way. What previously took one click, now takes a click...wait...click.

How was this change rationalized? I find many of the recent changes to smugmug to really be a backward step in usability. This current change, for example, and the flyout toolbar thing to name another.

-Scott

Dbl

scwalter wrote:

I'm sorry, but I really don't see this an an improvement in any way. What previously took one click, now takes a click...wait...click.

How was this change rationalized? I find many of the recent changes to smugmug to really be a backward step in usability. This current change, for example, and the flyout toolbar thing to name another.

-Scott

I couldn't agree with you more, not to mention it doesn't work for all of us.

DavidTO

Dbl wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more, not to mention it doesn't work for all of us.

I think it's a huge improvement. You can add photos to any gallery without having to navigate there. Now that's cool!

cjyphoto

DavidTO wrote:

I think it's a huge improvement. You can add photos to any gallery without having to navigate there. Now that's cool!

Didn't you just say it doesn't work for you a few posts up?

DavidTO

cjyphoto wrote:

Didn't you just say it doesn't work for you a few posts up?

It works for me on my homepage, so I know what's there. As for working on my categories page, I actually don't care much, since I rarely access it from there. But I do think it's a great idea, and I'm sure that SmugMug will work out whatever little bugs there are with it. Or, when I can reset my modem/router I can see if that works.

brandofamily

I'd like to get back to my original question... I actually like the "other" changes. But which ever change adjusted the default fonts (yes it has been done, I can see it when I edit my descriptions in my galleries) I'd like to undo. Otherwise I'll have to do quite a bit of readjusting... I'd rather not do that...
Thanks for always trying to update SM.

DavidTO

Anthony,

I'm of no help with the question you have about SmugMug's changes, but I did look at your code, and I would suggest that you could make your code much more conducive to changes.

First off, I can tell you've put an awful lot of work into your code. More than I have, and my hat's off to you for that.

But I would organize your code very differently, and maybe you might think about this next time you're in for a challenge.


Take, for instance, the following code:

body a:link {color:#faebd7; font-family:"Gentium","Times New Roman", times, serif; text-decoration:underline;}
body a:visited {color:#faebd7; font-family:"Gentium","Times New Roman", times, serif;}
body a:hover {color:#8f7b62;}
body a:active {color:#faebd7;}

body .boxTop .nav a:link,
body #editBioLink a:visited {color:#faebd7; font-family:"Gentium","Times New Roman", times, serif;}
body #editBioLink a:hover {color:#8f7b62;}
body #editBioLink a:active {color:#faebd7;}

This is just a small snippet, but I think that you'd be better served to put all of the the font-family code in one command, instead of spreading it out. You could design the code so that you could change the font-family once. Things like that, and colors, are the things you're most likely to want to change globally, and having it all specified in one place just makes sense to me.

You've also got long sections like this:

.keywordPage .caption {display:none;}
.keywordPage #caption_bottom {display:none;}
.keywordPage #completeDiv {display:none;}
.datePage #BIHeader {display:none;}
.datePage #OBD {display:none;}
.datePage .menu {display:none;}

Which could be easily reduced. I know you know how, you do it elsewhere. I just think that you're making it hard on yourself.

The other thing that I learned (from Mike Lane), is the power of themes. You can make your own themes, which are loaded below your CSS, so that they override it. You've got a lot of gallery by gallery customization. Making new themes for each might be better/easier since you'd be breaking your code into smaller, more manageable chunks. I'm no engineer, but I think this must be a good idea: SmugMug just did that sitewide (check out the newly expanded number of stylesheets attached to your site).

Anyway, like I said, I can tell you've been working hard. I just saw some ways that I thought you could work smarter.

stlracing

After a reboot of my workstation, IE now works. I was getting some javascript errors before I rebooted.

Mike Lane

brandofamily wrote:

I'm noticing that some of the alignment on my pages is off. I did nothing to my code....
The changes look to be in FF only as far as I have found...
In using FF WD CSS edit function I see some tabs I do not remember... one being fonts.css...
Is this the code that is changing things? If so, can I over ride it? Or do I need to tweak some of my pages?
Thanks

Help us out What changes are you seeing specifically? You know the more info we have the better we're able to help you.

As far as the new CSS goes, you could take a look at it to see if it would affect your page I'm guessing no unless your layout depends heavily on the size fo the text in input boxes (which I'm willing to wager it does not).

brandofamily

Here's the offending piece of code (from the font.css tab in FF WD)

body * {line-height:1.22em;}

if you go to this page

http://www.brandolinoimaging.com/gallery/1091885

and delete the above line of code.... you will see the spacing change... the spacing w/o that line of code is what I had... Is there a way to basically delete the effects of that line w/o reworking my pages?

Mike Lane

brandofamily wrote:

Here's the offending piece of code (from the font.css tab in FF WD)

body * {line-height:1.22em;}

if you go to this page

http://www.brandolinoimaging.com/gallery/1091885

and delete the above line of code.... you will see the spacing change... the spacing w/o that line of code is what I had... Is there a way to basically delete the effects of that line w/o reworking my pages?

Really? Don't you think you're being a wee smidge picky? You don't need pixel perfect text placement to convince your page viewers to buy your pictures. Try to see the bigger picture and not worry so much about little nits like that.

Having said that, just go into the fonts.css page and adjust the 1.22em until it looks juuuuuuuuust right (you can make it any decimal value you want btw, 1.195823726292876145em will work just fine). Once you get it right you can either put that body * {line-height:1.195823726292876145em;} (or whatever) right in your CSS or you can put something more specific to the page in question.

Hope that helps.

jh4wvu

I just noticed my site's header is off just a little too... http://gallery.wvuband.org Not sure if this is do to any of these changes or not. I have not made any changes to my site and they graphics in the header are off a little as you can see.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Chris Southard

BeachBill

scwalter wrote:

I'm sorry, but I really don't see this an an improvement in any way. What previously took one click, now takes a click...wait...click.

How was this change rationalized? I find many of the recent changes to smugmug to really be a backward step in usability.

I just tried adding photos to a gallery for the first time since the "upgrade". Usability has taken a step backwards. What used to take one click now takes two.

I don't have a problem if you just add this "new feature" to the home page, but when I'm in a specific gallery and I click "add photos", please let me just add photos to that gallery without having to wait for a downdrop and click again.

iamback

jh4wvu wrote:

I just noticed my site's header is off just a little too... http://gallery.wvuband.org Not sure if this is do to any of these changes or not. I have not made any changes to my site and they graphics in the header are off a little as you can see.

Any thoughts?

I had a quick look and see that your header is constructed of nested tables with images placed on a background image (not the best of approaches but that's beside the point here). But images are inline content, and thus subject to line-height definitions in CSS.
Now, I didn't test this, but you could try to set line-height (in your CSS) for those table cells and images that you are placing on top of the background to the exact number of pixels that you images/table cells are high and see if that helps. Also make sure you have defined no padding for the table cells, or the exact number of pixels you need for positioning the foreground images (that's another example of my "be specific" mantra).

General note: combining sizes defined in pixels and in ems in the same dimension (horizontal, or vertical) can easily lead to layout problems because browsers need to calculate an actual size in pixels for those ems. Having everything in ems or everything in pixels circumvents rounding differences in browsers. And yes, you can define image sizes in ems, too - as long as you take care to be consistent - and they will even scale with text; but this works for foreground images only.

iamback

Z-index?

BeachBill wrote:

I just tried adding photos to a gallery for the first time since the "upgrade". Usability has taken a step backwards. What used to take one click now takes two.

There's another problem with it, too, as I just found. See attachment. Looks like some Z-index values need to be adjusted (or defined if they're not).